presented a Petition from William Cross, a Farmer, in the neighbourhood of Dover, praying that some measure might be adopted for the protection of Agricultural Implements. The petitioner stated, that in the month of November last his thrashing machine was destroyed by rioters, and as those implements were not enumerated in the "Remedies against the Hundred Act;" he could obtain no compensation. He (Lord George Lennox) regretted exceedingly that the thrashing machines of such persons were not protected, and if no other Member of the House would undertake the task, he would bring in a Bill to give the same protection to the farmer as the manufacturer already possessed.

said, he had asked the question before, how it was, that thrashing machines were not protected, and he had been told, they were so. But it seemed those who took the trouble to correct him had themselves laboured under a mistake with regard to this matter, for they were left wholly unprotected. If a thrashing machine was destroyed by rioters, the farmer had no remedy, while if his house or furniture was injured he had an immediate remedy against the hundred. Under such circumstances, he begged to ask the hon. and learned Member, whether his Majesty's Government were about to introduce any measure to correct this anomaly.

said, he was not aware of any such measure being in contemplation.

observed, that he should take the very first opportunity of putting some questions to Ministers on the subject.

presented a petition from the Landowners, and Inhabitants of Petworth, complaining of the great increase of the Poor-rates from 1810, to 1831, and praying that some Act should be introduced by which an equitable apportionment of the able-bodied labourers upon the land should be regulated by the decision of a majority, in value, of the ratepayers.

could bear his testimony to the truth of the allegations contained in this petition. By the present unfortunate system at the meetings of Vestries, the dissent of one man out of twenty was sufficient to do away with the good intentions of the majority. Where nineteen well-disposed men wished to arrange an equitable apportionment of the able-bodied labourers upon the land, rather than setting them to work upon highways, and in stone pits, one self-willed person might overturn the proposition. He was no advocate for compulsory measures, but he apprehended that a permissive Bill might be framed, which could be acted upon where there existed a disposition to improve the condition of the poor, and which would enable a majority of two-thirds of the rate-payers in value, in Vestry assembled, to settle an equitable apportionment of the able-bodied labourers upon the land; and also to levy a proportionate rate in lieu of labour, upon such rate-payers as dissented from, or neglected to act upon, the principle established by this majority. Every occupier of land who was liable to be assessed, would pay labourers' wages according to the amount of his assessment; and an option might be given to every rate-payer whether he would employ a labourer, or pay the amount to the overseer. If this plan were adopted, it now was acted upon in a few districts, the labourers employed would be under a better control, and a competition would be raised for the best hands. The present practice of sending labourers out in gangs to work upon the roads, generated habits of idleness, instead of industry; while at the same time, their labour was of no proportionate value to the increased demand upon the Poor-rates. On these grounds, he cordially agreed in the prayer of the petition, and was most happy to give it his support. He certainly wished he could induce the hon. member for Oxford to bring in a Bill to effect these objects.

begged to state to his hon. friend, that he never had an intention to bring a Bill before this House on the subject, because such a measure unless it were introduced by his Majesty's Ministers, would have no chance of success; but, at the same time, he was able to bear his testimony to the correctness of the statements of his hon. friend. There could be no doubt that great distress pervaded the agricultural districts. This evil was not to be remedied by ordinary means; but, he believed, if the law was so framed as to enable those labourers who were well disposed, and willing to work, to procure employment, the evil might be remedied. But the fact was, that any one rate-payer in the Vestry who was ill-disposed, might defeat the arrangements made, however good they might be, or by whatever majority they might be carried. He was of opinion, therefore, that it would be most useful to frame an Act, by which a majority of the Vestry should have the power given them of legally providing employment for industrious and well-disposed persons.

said, the present condition of the agricultural labourers was most pitiable. In many places, during ten months of the year, a great number of able and well-disposed men were incapable of procuring work. Much was said about slavery in the West Indies, but there was no slavery there worse in its operation than that which existed in Sussex, where paupers were frequently harnessed together to draw loads.

added his most earnest wishes to those of other hon. Members, to request the hon. member for Oxford to bring in a Bill to remedy the immense evil which was so justly complained of. The hon. Gentleman knew his opinion upon the subject, and was also acquainted with the provisions of the Bill which he had introduced into the House about two years since; a measure which, being now connected with his Majesty's Government, he did not think it would be prudent in him to follow up, inasmuch as it might then be deemed a Government measure. He would merely state one fact, namely, that in a parish near which he resided, the general principle of the Bill introduced had been adopted by agreement of the Vestry; the effect of which was, that after the lapse of scarcely one year there had been a reduction of nearly two-thirds in the average Poor-rates: and the plan had been attended with other very beneficial results. The farmer could now actually make a profit by employing men; whereas in former years he contributed to their support without receiving any return.

said, that within the last ten years he had had an opportunity of seeing the effects of this system at Oundle and other places; and it had succeeded to the satisfaction of the farmers and landlords.

was of opinion that, this particular system of labour-rate might be adopted with advantage in certain cases, though he was not convinced that it could be resorted to as a general measure. It must not be supposed that the condition of the labourer could be permanently improved unless the owners of the soil were also benefitted and relieved. He was sure that a general commutation of tithes would do more than anything to remove the existing grievances. Such a measure would strike at the root of the evil, and lead to future prosperity. There were two things which must be carried into effect, before any real good could be effected—namely, a change in the system of taxation, and a commutation of tithes.

agreed with the hon. member for Wiltshire, that all enactments must prove complete failures, unless there was a general relief from the present weight of taxation; but in the mean time he begged to assure the hon. member for Sussex, that if he would bring in such a Bill as he suggested, he should be happy to give him his support.

said, that as it had been remarked that Ministers ought to introduce a Billon the subject, he believed, the reason why they declined doing so was that they considered the undertaking would be more satisfactory if it did not proceed from Government.

, on presenting a Petition from the Chamber of Commerce and Manufacturers, and of Merchants, Ship-owners, and others, of Dundee, for equalizing the duty on Flax, and for a drawback on Hemp in bonded warehouses, &c. said, this Petition was signed by almost every merchant and ship-owner in the town of Dundee; and the prayer of the petitioners was, that they might be relieved from the present high duty on hemp. Being well acquainted with that part of the country, he begged to inform the House, that the great mass of the population, not only of Dundee, but of all the neighbouring towns and villages, were employed in the manufacture of hemp and linen goods. Having for about eight years received bounties upon the exportation of these goods, which had varied from fifteen to twenty-five per cent, they had been enabled to compete with, and even undersell, the foreign manufacturers; and hemp and linen goods to an immense amount were now annually exported to various parts of the world from Dundee and that part of Scotland, giving employment to many thousands of our countrymen. In 1825, a gradual reduction of those bounties commenced, and, at the same period, as a bonus to the manufacturers and shipping interest, the duty on hemp was reduced from 9l. 6s. 8d. to 4l. 3s. 4d. per ton; and he believed he might state, with perfect truth, that there was, at that period, a distinct understanding between the Government and those who were interested in that branch of trade, that the duty on hemp was to be taken off entirely when the bounties ceased. On the 5th of last January these bounties ceased; but this oppressive duty on hemp was continued. It required no argument, he should think, to satisfy the House, that if our manufacturers were obliged to pay a high duty, amounting to 4l. 3s. 4d. per ton, on the importation of hemp, it was quite impossible for them to continue to export goods made of that article, and to compete with the Germans and other foreigners who had the raw material so much cheaper. It was evident that the consequence of persisting in exacting this very impolitic duty must be, that that branch of trade would be entirely lost to us, and an immense number of unfortunate people thrown out of employment. If, however, this duty were taken off, we should not only be able to maintain our present export trade, but even to extend it; and it would be attended with another advantage. At present almost all the vessels employed in the Baltic trade supplied themselves with cordage in foreign parts; but if the duty on hemp was taken off, they would naturally purchase their cordage at home, which was, in general, very superior to the foreign, and by this means an additional number of hands, indeed to a great amount, would receive employment in the manufacture of ropes and cordage. He was quite aware that, owing to the state of the revenue, this was not a very convenient period to call upon the House to relinquish any duties; but, looking at the great benefits which would be derived by so many industrious individuals who were interested in this question, and looking at the inevitable consequences that must result to them if it were continued, he did think that the trifling loss of revenue was not worthy of a moment's consideration. At present, the amount of duty received upon the importation of hemp, amounted to only between 60,000l. and 70,000l.; but from this must be deducted a large sum, which had been annually repaid in the shape of bounties upon the exportation of articles manufactured from hemp, so that the sum actually received by the Treasury must be very small; and, for the future, it will be still less, as the high duty would operate as a prohibition, and little or no hemp would be imported. He, therefore, did trust, that as great benefits would be derived by many thousands by taking off this duty, and as the loss of revenue would be so trifling, his Majesty's Government and the House would take the prayer of the petitioners into their earliest and most favourable consideration.

hoped that the Government would be able to put these duties on such a plan as to bring the trade of this country into a natural state of competition with that of others.

said, the prayer of the petition was of considerable consequence to the whole community. Although the tax on linen had been withdrawn, that on hemp and other raw materials was still continued, for which reason it was impossible for this country to compete with others. In his opinion, the tax ought to be taken off: the loss of revenue was of no importance in comparison with the evil caused by the tax.

having moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,

begged to take the opportunity of stating one or two facts which had come to his knowledge respecting some cases of Cholera Morbus, in the hope that his Majesty's Ministers would take care to prevent a repetition of such conduct. A man in the early part of the day had been attacked by the disease at Hoxton. A surgeon pronounced it a decided case of Spasmodic Cholera, and the individual in question was taken in a coach to Bartholomew's Hospital, where he was refused admittance, as no Cholera cases were taken in there. He was next carried to the building in Abchurch-lane, given up by the Lord Mayor for the time being, and to be at the disposal of the Board of Health, as was understood, for Cholera patients; but the man was also refused admission there, as the house was only for individuals in the neighbourhood. He was next conveyed to the Surrey Dispensary, in consequence of an advertisement that all persons would be received there without tickets. It appeared, however, that he could not remain there; and, after having been bled by the surgeon of the establishment, he was finally carried to an empty house in St. George's-fields, opposite Bedlam. Now, when he said he hoped Government would prevent a repetition of such a case, all he meant to say was, that it was their duty to see that suitable places were provided in each district, and that a person afflicted with the disease should not be hawked about through the city to Bedlam. He did not mean to impute any blame to the Lord Mayor; on the contrary, he thought his Lordship deserving of great praise for giving up the building, and for the convenience provided. The fact was, the house in Abchurch-lane was intended only for persons in the neighbourhood of the Exchange; and, to the credit of the authorities, it was amply provided with both clothes and flannel, which would be distributed when wanted. The nobles of Moscow gave up their mansions to those afflicted with the disease, and he was glad to find that the Lord Mayor had done the same, and set an example worthy of imitation. Another case was that of a sailor, who had been conveyed in a cabriolet in a similar way, from one place to another, and at last placed with the other patient in the house opposite. He thought it was extremely improper that coaches and cabriolets should be used in such a way. It was remarkable that, in a district like that of Hoxton, no receiving-house had been prepared.

said, it was very true that the person just alluded to by the hon. Member had been refused admittance in the city temporary hospital, but the case had turned out not to be one of Cholera at all. The man had recovered, and there was no reason to believe he had suffered from Cholera.

rose to express his great regret that hon. Members, in bringing forward cases of that kind, should do it in a way which would have a tendency materially to injure large classes in the metropolis. After what had fallen from the hon. member for Preston, it would go forth to the public to-morrow that the public conveyances were used in conveying Cholera patients to the hospitals. What the hon. Member ought to have done was, to take the number, and state the circumstance to some member of the Government. He was sure the hon. Member would be as sorry as any one to make a statement which might involve in distress a large and industrious class of individuals, and was convinced, if the hon. Member had been aware of the consequence, he would not have publicly made such an announcement. He, therefore, hoped, that Members, in mentioning any cases, would carefully avoid stating needlessly what might injure individuals.

entirely concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, and could only follow up the remarks which he had made. When hon. Members had any particular cases to mention, or grievance to complain of, it would be desirable, in the first place, that they should state them to some of his Majesty's Ministers, or some one connected with the Government. Unless Gentlemen observed discretion in a case of that kind, useless alarm might be given, which would only tend to add to the evil, and injure private individuals.

said, he had endeavoured to get the number of the cabriolet, but could not. As to what fell from the hon. Alderman, he could only say, that he had sent his servant to the house in St. George's-fields, and at half-past three the man was in extreme danger.

was rather surprised at what had fallen from the hon. member for Preston, as he had understood from the Chairman of the Board of Health, that places for the reception of patients were prepared in every district. He, therefore, thought there must be some mistake in saying that there was no such place at Hoxton. If such, however, was the fact, he submitted to the noble Lord the necessity of immediately providing proper houses for the purpose.

wished to know whether Government had made any new regulations respecting quarantine, now that the disease had shown itself in the metropolis.

could not answer the question at present.

begged leave, before the House went into Committee, to take that opportunity of protesting against the course which had been followed the other night in voting away money after twelve o'clock. On the understanding that the rule which had been latterly observed by the last Government would have been adhered to, he had left the House, and consequently had not an opportunity of opposing two grants to which he wished now to call the attention of the House. The first was a vote of 500l. to Mr. Marshall for his Statistical Tables. That was no doubt, a very useful and valuable work; it had gone through two or three editions, and he had bought a copy of it, and he believed many others had done the same. He thought, therefore, that as the work contained so many valuable statements, and had gone through several editions, the author would have been recompensed for his trouble by the sale, without a grant from Government. If the book contained valuable information for a certain class of people, it would be bought up as fast as the works of Lord Byron and Sir Walter Scott were purchased by another class. He was, therefore, utterly at a loss to understand why this money had been voted, unless, indeed, it was because its author had for many years been a protege of the hon. member for Middlesex, and had formerly been in his employment. Owing to these circumstances, and to his recommendation to the Government, the grant had probably been made. Had any other thing of a similar kind been proposed at two o'clock in the morning by the late Ministers, he was sure it would have been opposed by the hon. Member, who, by the way, was in the House at the time. The reply of the hon. member for Middlesex was, that he would vote anything for the sake of Reform, and by his recommendation he believed the 500l. was given to Mr. Marshall. The other item against which he protested was, the vote of 900l. to Dr. Bowring for his services in inquiring into the mode of keeping the public accounts in France. That learned Gentleman, after making the inquiry, and laying the plan before Government, concluded by saying, that it was a system, in comparison of others, beyond all praise, and that it was the most perfect system yet discovered of keeping the public accounts; yet, no sooner was such a statement made, than the cashier of the French Exchequer ran off with between 200,000l. and 300,000l. In the old antiquated bungling system, which had long been followed in this country, no such malversation had taken or could take place. A clerk might run off with 2,000l. or 3,000l. but no one ever heard of a Secretary or Treasurer carrying off anything like such a sum as had been embezzled in France. As he could not then oppose the votes, his chief object in making these remarks was, to let the country see how well the economists could, when they had the opportunity, take care of their friends.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had once or twice before adverted to the case of Mr. Marshall, and, in order to arrive at the true state of the circumstances, it was his intention to move for copies of the Treasury minute, in order to see the authority on which the grant had been made; and he was convinced that, on due consideration, the vote would be found most justifiable. He was astonished, however, at the right hon. Gentleman making such a charge—a Gentleman who, while in office, had sanctioned the most extravagant proceedings, and voted away thousands and tens of thousands of the public money; yet when the sum of 500l. was granted to one, and 1,000l. to another gentleman, for valuable services, the right hon. Member came forward, and complained as if some notorious job had been connived at. He should be ready to answer for the first case, and he had little doubt the right hon. member for Queen's County (Sir H. Parnell) would be able to defend the other. He had every reason to believe that the gentleman alluded to by the right hon. Member had rendered the right hon. Baronet great assistance in bringing forward the public accounts. He must again repeat his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman, who with his colleagues, had been so prodigal of the public money, should come forward now and complain of such grants, for his part, he must say, that he agreed to the vote at the hour mentioned, because he did not wish to stop the Reform question, and because he was aware that the object of the right hon. Gentleman, and some of those with whom he acted, was to delay the discussion till next day, in order to retard Reform. A charge of passing a vote for 500l. at that late hour came with a bad grace from one of the party who had spent 40,000l. on a marble arch, and 250,000l. more on a Palace, without the sanction of Parliament. He was most anxious to compare notes with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, because where the right hon. Gentleman had squandered away money by hundreds and thousands, he would challenge him and defy him to prove, that the other party had done it at all. He utterly denied that the case alluded to was a job. He denied altogether that he could be charged with a job. Let the Treasury only produce the authority on which the grant was made, and he should be ready to defend the case on public principles.

concurred in the general principle that it was wrong to make grants of the public money to authors, but he was prepared, on the showing of the right hon. Gentleman, to defend the conduct of Government on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he conceived the work so valuable, that he purchased a copy of it. Now Government had done nothing more. They had merely advanced the money to Mr. Marshall on the condition that he would furnish copies of his tables to all the public offices. It was altogether, a matter of bargain and sale between the parties. As to the grant to Dr. Bowring, he would only remark, that that gentleman had been regularly employed by Government to examine into the system of keeping public accounts in France—a system which there was no doubt, contained many advantages: and the item to which the right hon. Gentleman objected was charged as remuneration for this employment. Many valuable suggestions were contained in the report of Dr. Bowring, and he did not think that the sum was more than ought to have been given when the trouble to which that individual was put came to be considered. The case of malversation in France alluded to by the right hon. Member did not arise from any defect in the principle of carrying on business in France, but from the checks which Dr. Bowring had praised having been omitted.

said, it was at the recommendation of the Finance Committee that Dr. Bowring had been employed, and he willingly took upon himself the responsibility of the sum charged for his remuneration. That gentleman had been recommended as well qualified, for the office of examining the French mode of keeping accounts by a Member of the late Administration. From the two reports which he had drawn up, as to the mode of keeping the accounts in France, with respect to the military expenditure of that country, and the expenditure of the Colonial Department, it was obvious that he possessed much skill and knowledge on such subjects, and that the money was well earned. With respect to what had been asserted by the right hon. Gentleman as to the fraud practised, that fraud was detected in consequence of the regulations. He really thought nothing could be more unfounded than the objections made to this grant. The French system was the result of many years' laborious investigation, and it appeared to him absurd to put our chance-begotten plan in competition with it.

denied that he wished to object to bringing up the report of the Committee of Supply the other night, as the hon. member for Middlesex had somewhat presumptuously stated for the purpose of delaying the Reform Bill. That hon. Gentleman, if not asleep on that occasion, certainly betrayed an obtuseness of understanding such as he frequently exhibited in that House. He did not object to the whole of the civil contingencies, but merely wished to have an explanation with respect to two items in that report—viz., those which gave sums of money to Mr. Marshall and Dr. Bowring. He wished for information upon that subject, and could not obtain it, the bringing up the report at the hour he had mentioned took him by surprise. He still thought that Mr. Marshall would not have received any remuneration, had he not been a protegé of the hon. Member, and he still thought the remuneration given to Dr. Bowring much too large. He hoped that the noble Lord would cause an estimate to be submitted to the House, before he Commissioned Dr. Bowring to execute anymore public works.

as a member of the Finance Committee was bound to say that the public accounts submitted to that Committee were not kept on a correct and simple principle. He, therefore, considered expenditure on an inquiry of that nature was money well laid out, for it was notorious our system of keeping public accounts was most wretched. He would take an early opportunity to examine the reports which had been made by Dr. Bowring, and then he should be better able to judge of their value. As he had just stated, he really thought money expended on that subject was usefully employed, provided the person selected was fully qualified to execute the task.

requested the attention of his Majesty's Ministers to the paragraph on which his question would he founded. It was this, and was to be found in The Times newspaper of the 15th inst.

"Letters from Belleisle of the 10th announce the sailing, on that day, of the first division of the Portuguese expedition. The following order of the day, addressed more particularly to the English auxiliaries, was issued by Admiral Sartorius on the occasion. Order of the day.—The Commander-in-Chief of the expedition hastens to make known to the seamen and soldiers of the division, that his Imperial Majesty has been pleased to confirm the gift of the equipments which the Vice-Admiral, in his reliance on the well-known high-mindedness of the Emperor, had taken upon him to promise. His Majesty has, moreover, not only ratified the allowance of 55s. monthly pay, but, in order to testify his high opinion of the English seamen and soldiers, especially with regard to those who are under the command of the Vice-Admiral, he has increased that pay by 5s a month, during all the time that the Queen's flag shall remain hoisted on their vessels. The Vice-Admiral calls on his shipmates to second his efforts with heart and hand in a cause which, next to that of their King and country, is the most noble that an Englishman can serve—a cause laudably undertaken for the purpose of restoring an august Princess to her Throne—of opening the dungeons of thousands of victims, whose only crime has been fidelity to their duty and their oath—and of enabling Portugal to regain that constitutional liberty which has so greatly contributed in giving to your own country the sovereignty of the seas, and placing you among the first nations of the world. His Majesty's intentions are humane and conciliatory; but if they are disregarded, it will be then for us to prove, as true Britons, with the help of Providence, that reliance has not in vain been placed in our courage and our arms, for the purpose of scouring the oppressed, and procuring the liberation of the innocent.—Belleisle, Feb. 4."

He wished to ask the noble Lord whether Admiral Sartorius held a Commission in his Majesty's service?

believed that the person described as Admiral Sartorius, had been a captain in the Royal Navy, but he was not prepared to say whether he still held his commission or not.

said, he remembered well that a proclamation had been issued by Government some years ago, forbidding the King's officers from entering into the service of the South American Colonies on declaring their independence, and he thought the same course ought to have been pursued on the present occasion. The noble Lord professed himself unable to give an answer whether Admiral Sartorius continued still in his Majesty's service, but surely the attention of Government ought to have been called to that point on the sailing of the expedition of Don Pedro from Bellesile in which it was said a large number of British troops and sailors had embarked. It was a question of importance to ascertain whether the Government preserved a strict neutrality between the two branches of the House of Braganza. He was afraid it would turn out that they had given, not directly, certainly, but indirectly, some assistance to the expedition against Portugal, and in doing so he begged to observe that the British interests in that country were sacrificed.

, who just then entered the House, stated, that he had no hesitation in answering the question. Captain Sartorius did remain on the list of captains liable to serve his Majesty; but he begged to remark, that, although on the list, he was not to be considered in the employment of the King; for there was a provision which prohibited any of his Majesty's officers who entered into foreign service, from receiving their half-pay while so engaged. Therefore Captain Sartorius, being engaged under Don Pedro, did not receive the King's pay. Nor, indeed, could he, or any other officer do so, without making affidavit that they were not engaged in the service of any foreign prince. He begged further to add, that Captain Sartorius was at present absent without leave.

was glad to hear from the right hon. Baronet, that Captain Sartorius was still on the half-pay list, and he hoped that he would long continue so. After the debate relating to Portuguese affairs a few nights since, he must say, he felt a little surprised to hear his hon. colleague take this opportunity of reviving that discussion; Don Miguel himself would be astonished when he found that he had an advocate in one of the friends of Reform and of liberal institutions. If the strict neutrality which his hon. colleague advocated had always been preserved, Don Miguel would most likely be at this moment a prisoner at Brazil, whi- ther he would have been sent by the liberal party, but for the interference of this country.

observed, that the advice of the hon. Gentleman, in recommending his hon. colleague not to revive the debate on the affairs of Portugal, was much better than his example. He presumed that the right hon, Gentleman was aware that, by the Foreign Enlistment Act, any person, a subject of his Majesty, who should, without license from the King, accept a commission from a foreign state, was thereby guilty of a misdemeanor, and might be punished by fine and imprisonment. He, therefore, must say, that he thought the conduct of Captain Sartorius deserved the cognizance of his Majesty's Government.

observed, that the officer alluded to was amenable, if he had violated the law, and if he had done so, any one might prosecute him; but he thought that at least it was not the business of the House to interfere and press on the Government a prosecution of this kind. There seemed to him something of the spirit of party in this sort of conduct.

said, that a more unprovoked attack than that which the gallant Colonel had just made he had seldom witnessed. His gallant friend who asked the question had merely demanded whether Captain Sartorius was an officer in the British service, without any intention to urge a prosecution against that officer.

repeated his belief that there was something of a spirit of party in the question, for he did not think that when Marshal Beresford was appointed to a command in the Portuguese army, anybody had come down to that House to ask whether Marshal Beresford was an officer in the British service.

believed, that the gallant Colonel would find that Marshal Beresford had not accepted a command in the Portuguese service without a special license from this Government. The Government had a right to grant the license; and the only point at present was—whether they had given the license. If they had, and if they approved of Captain Sartorius accepting a command in the Portuguese service, there was an end of the question. Another might certainly then arise—whether they had acted wisely in granting the permission? He should only now observe, that he objected to such permissions; tending, as they did, to encourage the violation of the law. While the law existed, he thought it ought to be obeyed. If it was a bad law, it ought to be repealed.

wished to ask, whether Captain Sartorius had leave of absence? He would not ask whether the Government had given him a license; for, after the repeated professions of neutrality put forth by the British Government, he should not entertain for a moment the idea that they had granted a license. He should also beg leave to ask, whether, in the leave of absence, there was not always inserted a clause, absolutely prohibiting the officer to whom it was granted from entering a foreign service? If that was so, and Captain Sartorius had entered into foreign service, he would be offending, not only against the Act of Parliament, but against the positive prohibition of the Admiralty.

observed, that, in the answer he had before given, he had anticipated the present question. He had stated distinctly to the House, that not only Captain Sartorius could not draw his pension, but that he was absent without leave. He thought, after this, that it was quite unnecessary to add that no license could have been granted.

protested against the supposition, that a question of this kind was always put to the Government from a spirit of party, and with a view to oppress individuals. He did not think that, in the present case, it would be necessary to act with severity. It was not necessary to remove the officer from the British service; but his Majesty might recal him from the foreign service, and if he did not choose to obey that call, might then dismiss him. His Majesty possessed the requisite power, and it was a power that might be most beneficially employed. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.

stated, that according to the plan which the Ministers had brought forward, with the sanction and unanimous approval of that House, he had now to propose to the Committee the quarter's Estimates. He was sorry that he should not be able to give to the Committee so fair and flourishing an account of the de- partment, on the duties of which he had recently entered, as his right hon. friend had given of the Admiralty Department. But the country would bear in mind, that, since 1820, there had been a considerable decrease in the charge for the Army. Notwithstanding that the amount of the forces, and all the other departments, were not much less than at that time, and although there were now some additional Estimates, the decrease in the charge since 1820 amounted to 684,000l. He had been but a short time in office, and, therefore, was not responsible for the Estimates, which were, in fact, but a part of the Estimates for the year 1831, but he had seen enough since he had been in office to incline him to think that it was impossible for any Government to maintain a military establishment on a more diminished scale for the ordinary service of the State. He would now proceed to state the various items of expenditure, and he trusted he should be able to make himself clearly understood. At any rate, he held himself ready to answer every question that any hon. Member thought would elucidate his statement. The charge for the effective service was 896,831l. and for the non-effective service, 726,211l., showing a decrease in this quarter, as compared with any quarter of the last year, in the effective service, of 15,300l., while there was, in the non-effective, an increase of 35,131l., and, before he proposed the individual votes, perhaps it would be as well that he should shortly run over the abstract of each of these services. The vote for the Land Service was 805,961l., showing an increase of 17,922l. for the quarter. He should be able to explain that when he came to that particular vote. The charge for Staff Officers was 30,667l., showing a decrease of 463l. The charge for the Public Departments was 25,246l., showing a decrease of 728l. The charge for medicines was 3,000., showing a decrease of 105l. For Garrisons, 8,425l., being a decrease of 34l. For the Royal Military Colleges, 991l., being a decrease of 416l. For the Military Asylums, 4,433l., or a decrease of 581l. For the Hibernian Schools, 1,360l., or a decrease of 270l. There was likewise a large decrease upon the Volunteer Corps, as the charge for the Volunteer Corps of each quarter of last year was 47,571l., while, on the present quarter, it was 16,768l., showing a deduction in the quarter, on this charge, of 30,683l. The House would, therefore, see, that the decrease on the whole of the estimates for the effective services was upward of 15,300l. With respect to the non-effective services, the charges were as follows:—For general officers, 32,200l., being a decrease of 1,550l.; for retired full-pay, 23,000l., being a decrease of 825l.; for half-pay, &c., 169,600l., being a decrease of 4,850l.; for foreign half-pay, 22,425l., being a decrease of 400l.; for militia retired officers, &c. 6,684l., being a decrease of 109l.; for widows' pensions, 36,980l., being an increase of 36l.; for compassionate allowances, &c. 44,047l., being a decrease of 1,108l.; for in and out pensioners of Chelsea, &c. 378,579l., being an increase of 44,583l.; and, for superannuations, 12,696l., being a decrease of 646l. There was, therefore, an increase upon the whole of these Estimates for the non-effective services, of 35,131l. The first vote to be submitted to the Committee was the number of land forces; and he would take the present opportunity of making a few observations with reference to that subject. The House would recollect that, in the year 1830, the rank and file amounted to 69,125 men. In the year 1831, however, in consequence of the disturbances in England, it was thought advisable to increase the establishment of the army, by adding to the effective force 7,261 men. Since that period, certain battalions had returned from abroad, the effective force of which amounted to 3,256 men, so that, upon the whole an effective force of 10,516 men was made available inconsequence of the unfortunate state of the country. There was an apparent increase of rank and file of 897 men; and of 1,005 men of all ranks: but this increase did not exist in point of fact. The whole of the real increase amounted to 158 men, and the remaining apparent increase was occasioned by the return of a regiment from India. This regiment had been maintained by the East-India Company during its passage to this country, and was now, being returned, placed on the effective list of the army. The increase of expense on this head amounted to 18,000l. He had thus made to the Committee a brief statement of the Estimates, and would content himself with moving a Resolution, that the number of men employed in the land forces, from the 1st of January 1832, to the 1st of March, 1832, be 89,483l., exclusive of regiments in the territorial possessions of the East India Company.

said, that every one who was acquainted with the talents of the right hon. Baronet must have expected the business-like manner in which he had made his statement this evening. He was sure, that the public service and the Army would be satisfied with the effective manner in which he would discharge his duty. The purpose for which he rose was, to recommend the Ministers to introduce the Army Estimates for the ensuing financial year previous to the 24th of March, as that was the last day beyond which the re-enactment of the Mutiny Act could be delayed. With respect to the present Estimates, he would only say, though he was aware that the right hon. Baronet was not accountable for them, that the increase of 35,000l. in the non-effective service, and the decrease of 15,000l. in the effective service, had not been sufficiently explained.

said, that the present were merely supplementary Estimates, founded on the Estimates of last year, and it was not, therefore, to be supposed, that the right hon. Baronet could propose any reductions; but he thought the circumstance of the House being called upon to vote supplies for a quarter, half of which had already passed by, showed pretty plainly the necessity for altering the commencement of the financial year. When he was in office, he certainly had not made any distinct propositions of reduction; but he had offered suggestions for a considerable retrenchment, and he knew that there was room for effecting a considerable saving this year in the army expenditure.

considered that the arrangements made in the Army Department by Sir Henry Hardinge were so admirable as not to be susceptible of improvement. That right hon. Gentleman had effected considerable reductions; and he thought that to carry retrenchment further would only injure the effective condition of the army. He, therefore, was no friend to the right hon. Baronet's (Sir H. Parnell's) plans of retrenchment.

said, it was quite impossible that the gallant Officer could be aware of the nature of his plans of retrenchment; and it was, therefore, somewhat surprising that they had received his condemnation. Perhaps the gallant Officer judged of his schemes from certain absurd rumours which had lately gone abroad, which, he begged to assure him, were utterly without foundation.

imputed no blame to the right hon. Baronet; but one of the measures which he understood was to be ascribed to the right hon. Baronet, and of which he did not approve, was the refusing to allow the usual brevet rank on the occasion of the late Coronation.

said, that he had lately heard many reports respecting the measures of retrenchment which the right hon. Baronet had intended to propose, none of which, he would venture to say, had the least foundation in fact. With respect to the brevet rank, the ground on which the Government refused to grant it at the late Coronation was, because a large promotion had taken place a short time before.

said, if hon. Members knew the fatiguing duties which the Army had to perform as well as he did, they would be of opinion that the establishment was too small instead of too large.

was prepared to agree to the Estimates for the present quarter, without any objection, as he was aware that his right hon. friend had not had sufficient time allowed him to make himself acquainted with the details of his office. Knowing also, that it was the intention of the Government, that the Estimates for the present quarter should be the same as the last, he should not have done more than express a wish that the next Estimates would be reduced, but that the right hon. Baronet had made some observations which he felt called upon to notice. The right hon. Baronet ought not to have compared the year 1820 with the year 1831, for several reductions took place in the years 1821, 1822, 1823, and 1824, in the military force; and it was with the lowest of these years that the comparison ought to have been made. The reductions amounted altogether in those years to 25,000 men, and there was a consequent saving to the country to the amount of 800,000l. a-year. There was now 20,000 troops more than in 1824, with which year the comparison ought to have been made.

begged pardon for interrupting his hon. friend; but his hon. friend completely misapprehended the nature of his observation. He said, that although the number of troops now was nearly equal to the number in 1820, yet the expense was 684,000l. a-year less.

Certainly, the number of troops was nearly the same; but he did not see what necessity there had been for increasing the Army since 1824. In that year 22,000 men were disbanded; 13,000 men were added in 1825, and 7,000 were added last year. There were, at present, 20,000 more troops than at the commencement of 1825. For that enormous increase, no satisfactory reason had been assigned. It was our military establishment that was the great source of expenditure, and it must be reduced before there could be a reduction of taxation The gallant General (Sir John Byng) said, that the soldiers were constantly employed, but there was no merit in that; for why keep up an army if there was no employment for it? An idle soldiery was the most mischievous class in the community. He expected that his Majesty's Ministers would make great reductions in the next Estimates. And he must say, that the whole expense of the army ought to be furnished under one head—that the artillery and engineers should be included in this vote, as well as the horse and foot. He was confident, if hon. Members were acquainted with the whole number of men connected with our military establishment, that they would be greatly astonished. He had no doubt that his right hon. friend would find an ample harvest of reductions, if he went zealously to work. He must beg leave to tell the noble Lord, that if he and the rest of his colleagues in the Government were determined to keep up such enormous military and naval establishments, they would lose the confidence of the country. He hoped among other branches of the service, that a great reduction would be made in the artillery. He admitted that it was a most important and meritorious corps, and that the officers were men of great science; but it ought to be reduced, as the number of men was quite disproportionate to the service they were called upon to perform. It would also be advantageous if the Secretary at War performed the duties of Clerk of the Ordnance, and managed all the Estimates for the military. At present, the Secretary at War, was the mere clerk of the Commander-in-chief, and promotions were made in the army without his knowledge. Before the French war, the Commander-in-chief confined himself to his proper duty of an executive officer. But now that officer assumed too much authority, and it would be adviseable to break down the establishment at the Horse Guards. The present Commander-in-chief ought not to be allowed to continue in office. His excellent friend (Sir Henry Parnell) was dismissed by the Ministers, because he would not vote with them on the question of the Russian-Dutch Loan, but the Commander-in-chief was allowed to retain his situation, though he would not vote with Ministers on the Reform Bill. The fact was, that an influence somewhere prevented this being done. Somehow or other the Duke of Wellington appeared still to command at the Horse Guards, and his old Secretary who was still Secretary to the Commander-in-chief, held his levees at the Horse Guards. He saw no necessity for having such an officer for such purposes. Similar levees were not held by the Secretary to the Admiralty. Whenever that Gentleman began to receive Admirals as the Secretary at the Horse Guards received Generals, and other old officers, he should certainly think it high time that he was changed. Before 1792, the Commander-in-chief confined himself to the duties of his office, and the Secretary at War was, in reality, the Finance Minister for the army, and had a complete control over the expenditure of it. Now, however, he had no doubt that even the gallant officer (Sir Henry Hardinge) when Secretary at War, found, that in many things, the Horse Guards was too strong for him; and the present right hon. Baronet, who filled that office, would find it so too. The only praise that he could give the Government with respect to these Estimates was, that they had not added to the number of brevet promotions at the time of the coronation, considering, properly enough, that those promotions were sufficiently increased at the time of the accession. There were already more than superior officers enough, and it was most, inexpedient to increase them. He must complain of the mode of promotion in the army, for the old, grey-headed, meritorious officers were neglected, and young men, who had grown up like mushrooms, had been placed over their heads. He recently heard of a young man, hardly twenty-two years of age, who had the command of a regiment. Thus experienced officers were neglected, and mere youths were placed over their heads. He saw an officer, the other day, who had been twenty-three years in the service, and had distinguished himself, and yet he was kept subordinate to young men who had seen no service whatever. He was ready to admit, that the gallant officer (Sir Henry Hardinge) introduced many excellent alterations into the office over which he presided, and he only regretted that the gallant officer did not go further. He was sure, notwithstanding the reductions made by the gallant General, his right hon. friend would find an ample field to work upon; and, therefore, he trusted that next year he would be able to come down to the House and state that he had effected a reduction in the army to the amount of, at least, 22,000 men. In the Colonies there were between 7,000 and 8,000 men which could be brought away without difficulty. He was sure that the country expected as great reductions in the Army as had been made in the Navy, and that it would be much disappointed if this was not done. It had been said, that the soldiers had lately been employed on services which they had never been called upon to perform before: this arose from the circumstance that the Magistracy, on every occasion, liked to resort to military force, instead of preserving the peace by means of proper arrangements, and by the ordinary civil power of the country.

said, he was obliged to his hon. friend for his lecture; but he must say, that the field, which his hon. friend called on him to glean, had already been pretty well cleared. He would also say at once, that, since he came into office, he had seen enough of the wants of the public service to satisfy him that there were grounds of fierce debates between him and his hon. friend. They were, on certain points, he perceived, as much separated as the Poles, and there was little hope of their meeting at the Equator. With respect to the brevet which was expected at the Coronation, he could only say, that these were not times for extravagance; and he found that the omission of that Brevet saved the country 11,000l. a year. An Hon. Member said, that the hon. member for Middlesex had shown, by his speech, how completely ignorant he was of the duties of the Commander-in-chief and the Military Secretary. It was part of the duty of the latter to see persons having communications to make on the public service; and, as a matter of convenience to all parties, particular times were set apart for that purpose, and these were called levees: further, he thought it necessary to say, that no man in the Army spoke of the promotion made by Lord Hill as being marked by anything but the strictest impartiality, integrity, and judgment.

, in the name of a large body of constituency who were sorely distressed, felt himself called upon to protest against the keeping up so large a standing Army. He must, therefore, urge Ministers to make up their minds, between the present moment and the period when the annual Estimates would be brought forward, to reduce the existing amount of the standing Army. In his opinion, there were no circumstances in our foreign relations, the situation of this country, or Ireland, which rendered the maintenance of so large a military force necessary. At all events, the pacifying measures which Government were about to adopt with respect to Ireland would, he trusted, enable them to dispense with the presence of troops in that country.

said, that the Government would never be able to do without a large standing Army, until every man had a vote for the election of the Representatives of the nation. That used to be the doctrine of the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary at War, and his colleague, at their political dinners at the Crown and Anchor; but since they had changed their places in that House, they seemed to have changed their principles. As to Ireland, there really appeared no hope of getting the army out of that country. When the Catholic Question was under discussion, emancipation was constantly advocated on the ground of economy, because it was said, that, when it was granted there would be no necessity for a single soldier to remain in Ireland. Emancipation was granted, but the Army was not withdrawn. Now, the tithes were to be extinguished—that, he believed, was the phrase used by Ministers—but when there should no longer be tithes, the people of Ireland would not be satisfied. They would then agitate the Repeal of the Union.

said, the hon. member for Middlesex is accustomed to take great liberties with persons present or absent; and he, therefore, ought not to object to my drawing a comparison between him and the hon. member for Preston. I think the hon. member for Preston, on all occasions, exhibits much more candour and liberality than the hon. member for Middlesex. The hon. member for Middlesex stated, that the Commander of the Forces was in the habit of making improper or unnecessary promotions. The hon. Member ought to have known, that the Secretary at War controls the appointments of the Commander-in-chief, by having possession of the purse. In fact, no promotions can take place without his consent. With respect to the Commander-in-chief's levees, it is not for his own gratification that he holds them, but because they are found to be beneficial to the service. The hon. Member objects to Lord Hill, because he is the friend of the Duke of Wellington. Why does he not object to the Master General of the Ordnance, Sir James Kempt, on the same ground? There is not a distinguished officer in the service who is not the Duke of Wellington's friend. I have never heard a more illiberal attack upon any public officer than that which has been made upon Lord Hill; and I never can subscribe to the doctrine, that the Commander of the Forces ought to be merely a political instrument in the hands of the Government. Let me remind his Majesty's Ministers of the time, when they sat on the Opposition side of this House, that Gen. Sir Ronald Fergusson constantly acted with them, and voted in opposition to the government of the Duke of Wellington; yet that gallant General received a regiment from the Duke of Wellington. I do not say this out of anything like disrespect to the gallant General; on the contrary, I entertain the highest regard for him, I am well aware that he acted conscientiously, and was well deserving of promotion in his profession. Again, there was Sir George Anson, who also received a regiment, although he constantly voted in opposition to the late Government. I say, that political feeling was not suffered to mingle with the administration of the Army, under the Duke of Wellington. I protest against the doctrine of the hon. member for Middlesex, that military offices should be bestowed for political services. I was too young to be well acquainted with the political system of promotion in the Army in 1792, but I have repeatedly heard what was the state of the British Army when under the conduct of Lord Amherst, who, although a meritorious officer, too often consented, to make the interests of the Army subservient to the political views of the Minister of that day. At that time it was not uncommon to find a major or a lieutenant-colonel lying in his cradle. I say, God forbid that this system should ever be revived in this country. Referring to the promotions made by Lord Hill, I will mention the case of an officer, under whom I served for several years, who has been promoted to the command of a regiment without any application, for, or any expectation of it. I allude to Sir William Inglis, who was entirely without political patronage, was personally unknown to Lord Hill, and had nothing but his services to recommend him. With respect to the expectation of getting Brevet rank at the time of the Coronation, I never made myself in any way a party to encourage such an expectation, as I was aware of the objections on the score of economy. But is the House acquainted with the real state of the case? Shortly after the peace, in consequence of an address from the House, there was an order issued relative to the pay to be bestowed on general officers, and it was then settled that there should be three classes of unattached officers, who should be paid differently; namely, the General, Lieutenant-general, and Major-general. This was considered, also, to apply to all officers hereafter to be promoted to this rank. But, in the year 1818, his Royal Highness the Duke of York, then Commander-in-chief, and the then Secretary at War, agreed that it would be desirable to make a change in this system, as the expense was found to be very great, and effectually to stop the promotion of the lower officers of the Army. However, as acting on this principle would prevent a Brevet, in 1818 it was changed, and the Generals, when not on active service, were only to receive their regimental half-pay. Thus, a Lieutenant-general, or a Major-general, might only receive the half-pay of Lieutenant-colonel or Major, and by this change in the mode of paying the general officers of the Army, no less a sum than 212,000l. had been taken from them since that time, making on the whole, a saving, at the expense of the officers of the Army, to the amount of 23,000l. a year. Under these circumstances, the Army had a right to expect, that when the sacrifice was fairly made on their parts, there would be a more frequent recurrence to Brevet promotion. The recent withholding of that is not deserving, therefore, of such high commendation as has been bestowed on it. I must be allowed to express my approbation of the conduct of the right hon. Secretary, who acted with so much candour in telling the hon. member for Middlesex that he entirely disagreed with him in his views of economy, instead of endeavouring, by an appearance of yielding, to get over the vote to-night; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, if he pursues this line of conduct, he will not want supporters in this House. If unhappily, however, he or the Government should, with a short-sighted economy, adopt the views of the hon. member for Middlesex, I am sure the inevitable result will be, the destruction of the efficiency of the Army.

said, it was evident that the hon. member for Middlesex was unacquainted with the nature of the service. The hon. Member had thought proper to lecture other persons, but had only shewn his utter incompetency for the task. He was sure that his Majesty's Government would maintain the present military establishment, if it were necessary to the welfare of the country. And he was glad that they had the manliness to avow their opinions. The reduction of 22,000 men, as proposed by the hon. Member, was perfectly impossible. With respect to the office of Commander-in-chief, he did not hesitate to say, that if it were not filled by the Duke of Wellington, it ought to be filled by Lord Hill. He earnestly deprecated any attempt to mix up political opinions with the duties of military service. And therefore, he was of opinion, that the Commander-in-chief deserved to be continued in his office for not voting upon the Reform question, instead of being threatened with dismissal.

said, that he was not surprised at finding military men averse to reductions in the army. In his intercourse with officers, they had always shown themselves disinclined to take part against the Government of the day. They seemed to think the country ought always to be prepared with horse, foot, and artillery, ready to fight a second Battle of Waterloo. He had no personal dislike to Lord Hill, but, he thought, his Lordship ought to be removed, on the ground of his being a Member—an influential and powerful Member—of the Government. He blamed the Government, however, more than his Lordship. On the point of promotion, he would say nothing more than that certain individuals had, somehow or other risen in the Army. His object was to induce Ministers to bring down the next Estimate to the establishment of 1822, 1823, and 1824, when there were but 79,000 men employed, and he thought there was nothing chimerical in that proposal. For the present, he, of course, must agree to the votes then before the House, for the time was not sufficient for the King's Government to mature their arrangements.

disclaimed having said any thing in justification of the present amount of the standing Army. He was most anxious that it should be reduced, but it was in vain that he raised his voice against it, when both sides of the House advocated its continuance at its present strength. It was his opinion, that whilst no more than one-seventh part of the male adult population were represented in that House, the Government would always be a Government against the inclination of the people, and would be obliged to keep up a standing Army.

said, it was, of course, perfectly natural that officers of the Army should be opposed to any diminution of the existing force; but though he had long ceased to belong to the Army, he concurred with them, that further reductions at present would be dangerous. He was as great a friend to economy as the hon. member for Middlesex; but, in the present state of Ireland and of the world, he was surprised to hear any Gentleman urging the reduction of our military force. If he were disposed to find fault with Ministers, it should be for not having added to the military strength of the country. As to what had been said of mixing up politics with military duties, he (Sir John Sebright) happened, when a much younger man, to have been attached to the staff of Lord Amherst, who was Commander-in-chief, and had an opportunity of knowing the injurious effects of acting on such a system. Lord Amherst was a patriotic and excellent man, not influenced in the least degree by personal partialities or motives, but he had no power over the Army—he was dictated to by the Ministry—and great injury was done to the service and great injustice was done to individuals. At that time persons got the command of regiments, who should not have had the command of twelve men. Though he was now unconnected with the Army, yet from the intercourse with relatives still connected with it, and other circumstances, he had some opportunity of knowing how the Army was conducted. Of late years it had been much improved, but if ever the Army had been commanded with fairness—if ever political objects had been kept completely out of view, and if ever justice had been done both to officers and men, it was since Lord Hill had been in his present office. He admired Lord Hill as a Commander-in-chief, the more because he was not a political partisan.

fully concurred in the justice of testimony borne by the hon. Member who had just spoken to the merits of the Commander-in-chief. He rose, however, chiefly for the purpose of referring to one observation made by the hon. member for Middlesex. That hon. Member said, that officers did not dare to act openly in opposition to Government. Of the incorrectness of that assertion he was himself a proof. Avowing his opposition to the present Government, he had expressed himself as freely, and acted as openly, and as daringly as the hon. Member, who likes that word, could do on any occasion. When the army Estimates for the year were brought forward, he should think it his duty to trouble the Committee with his sentiments on various points connected with the military establishments of the country.

said, that the old and hacknied story of the disturbed condition of Ireland had this night again been brought to justify the continuance of an exorbitant military establishment. But the time was arrived when something else must be done for that country besides quartering a large military force on it. In peace, it was not imperative to have as large an army in Ireland as would be sufficient for a war establishment. Since the Union, he had witnessed an expenditure of nearly 100,000,000l. in maintaining military, ordnance, and commissariat establishments in Ireland. Was the time never to arrive when Ireland was to be governed by other means than the military and police? As the people paid to support this expenditure, they should know the causes which made it necessary, and the benefits which were derived from it. There was a new Secretary at War, and he should have been much pleased to have heard him make his d½but by stating that he was disposed to recommend a small de- duction in the military establishment in Ireland, to be applied to some branch of national improvement. Ireland was too poor a country to have so large a sum taken annually from the productive classes, to be expended on a department which added nothing to the stock of national wealth. The lavish military expenditure had failed to produce benefit; and when another 100,000,000l. had been expended (if it ever could be collected) it would be found that the necessity of the expenditure must come under inquiry then, if the inquiry into it be eluded now. He would strongly recommend the Ministers, (as enough money, had been expended on the military establishments in Ireland) to try what a small deduction from the Army service, and applied to the naval department, might do for the maritime prosperity of a country, the advantages of whose insular situation ought not to be neglected or overlooked. In what part of the world, with the exception of Great Britain, was there to be found so fine a field for maritime and commercial improvement and enterprise? Why should not the British Navy have docks to be repaired, or why should there not be a single naval arsenal supplied with stores, on 3,000 miles of a sea cost, abounding in harbours and conveniences. Every man in the empire was wearied in seeking to discover the causes which made it necessary to garrison Ireland with 20,000 regular troops, and 7,000 armed police. He was one of those who would gladly see the experiment tried, of a small saving in the Army, to be applied in extending naval stations, and distributing a portion of naval patronage and support to a country which had every pretension for considering itself as the most highly-favoured and important maritime position amongst the nations of Europe. He was tired of seeing marching regiments in country barracks, consuming everything, and producing nothing. If the Representatives of England wanted to spend money on Ireland, he would implore them not to overlook the great advantages which might result from the application of a small sum to naval purposes. Undoubtedly Ireland was exposed to frequent disturbance, and to sudden insurrections; and until the condition of the people of Ireland was improved, there would be a degrading competition in England with the miserable Irish labourer, and Ireland would be a disturbed country, employing, as at present, the military force of the empire. He had known the gentry in civil disturbances array themselves and defend their properties and families—they served without pay—they restored tranquillity and peace,—they would do so again and again, making the Army unnecessary in Ireland. There could be no necessity, indeed, for such services if there was good Government. Plans of relief, and measures of coercion, were alternately brought forward; but the important inquiry was, what had occasioned the disturbances, which were plain proofs of there being something radically vicious and distempered? The disease, whatever might be its cause—and that it was light no man could say, for it affected the happiness of many millions of people—had received no relief from the expenditure of hundreds of millions in support of the military force, it was time, therefore, to use some other method. The question that the Land Forces should consist of 89,047 men having been again put from the Chair,

would not divide the House upon this vote; but when the Army Estimates for the year were brought forward, he should move, as he had done last year, that the standing army should be reduced by 10,000 men. Resolution agreed to, as were also the following votes:— 305,961l. for defraying the charge of the land forces in Great Britain and Ireland. 30,666l. for the general staff officers and officers of the hospitals. 25,245l. for allowances to the principal officers of several military departments, their clerks, deputies, and contingent expenses. 3,000l. for medicines, and surgical materials. On the question that the sum of 8,424l. be granted to defray the charge of his Majesty's garrisons at home and abroad,

objected to the grant, on the ground that half of the persons who received garrison appointments did no duty. He was of opinion that if veteran officers were deserving, it would be better to pension them at once.

said, he would leave the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, to answer the remark of the hon. Member. He believed that noble Lord had formerly satisfied himself that these appointments were useful.

should continue to support the continuance of those garrisons. Vote agreed to.

said, he really thought no persons ought to be received into the College, but those whose friends could afford to pay for their education. He saw no reason why officers' sons were to be educated at the expense of the public.

said, that the number of the higher class of students was increased, while that of the lower was diminished, and that a saving would consequently accrue to the public. Vote agreed to. 5,773l. was voted to the Royal Military Asylum, and the Hibernian Military School.

suggested, that the brigade majors in Ireland, who were hardly military men, should be discontinued.

intimated, that it was resolved that four of the ten employed should be done away with.

said, he must take that opportunity to declare, that the yeomanry of Ireland had been of the greatest service to the country; they had been grossly maligned of late, but the time would come when justice would be done to their merits.

disapproved of a system that placed arms in the hands of a party, for the purpose of coercing the majority of the community. Vote agreed to, as were also the following:—170,958l. 5s. 8d. for regiments in the East India Company's territories, and the troops and companies and dépôts at home; and 4,800l. to defray the charge of Exchequer fees in Great Britain upon issues to be made for effective army services; as well as 32,200l. for the army pay of general officers; 23,000l. for the full pay of retired officers; 169,600l. for half pay and military allowances.

said, as the foreign officers for whose half-pay this charge was made, were employed by us to reestablish governments under which they now generally lived, he thought there would be nothing unreasonable in calling upon such governments to support them.

feared, that the o his decrease that could be expected from t charge, must arise from casualties.

As these officers engaged in our service upon certain terms, we were bound in faith and honour to fulfil them.

thought, the matter might be made the subject of negotiation between the governments of the various countries, where such officers resided, and probably, a commutation could thereby be obtained.

believed some of these officers were in full-pay in the service of their respective sovereigns.

If so they forfeited their half-pay, unless they had his Majesty's permission to enter into such service. Probably with regard to the out-pensioners, some commutation could be made with them. Many such persons resided abroad, and it daily became more difficult to identify them. He had, when in office, endeavoured to effect this object, and, he trusted, it would not be overlooked. The vote agreed to. The sum of 6,683l. 19s. was then proposed to defray the charge for reduced Local Militia Adjutants, retired officers of the Militia, from the 1st of January to 31st of March, 1832.

thought this charge ought to be inserted in the Militia Estimates, and it would be an improvement in the Estimates of the sums for the effective and non-effective services were added together, so as the whole cost could be obtained at one view. Vote agreed to. The next grant proposed was the sum of 36,980l. to defray the charge of pensions to be paid to the widows of officers of the land forces, from the 1st of January, to the 31st of March, 1832.

said, he could not suffer this vote to pass without calling the serious attention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, to the alteration that had been made in granting these pensions; and he could assure him, with all sincerity and truth, that it had caused great sensation among those officers of the army who had become acquainted with it. This subject was fully brought before the House in 1818,* when an alteration was made in the warrant which

*Hansard's Parl, Debates, vol, xxxviii. p. 376.

directed that widows, in addition to the former oath, should be called upon to swear that they had not an income equal to double the amount of their pension. On that occasion, Mr. Lyttleton, the then member for Worcestershire, brought the matter before the House, by a distinct motion, for an humble address to the Prince Regent, praying that the new warrant might be revoked, and the pensions be issued as before, when the sense of the House was so decidedly in favour of Mr. Lyttleton's Motion, that the new warrant was withdrawn. As there were many Members present who were not in the House in 1818, and who might not be aware of the footing on which these pensions had hitherto been granted, he begged to explain it. Pensions to officers' widows had formed a charge in the votes of this House ever since there had been a standing Army in the country, as would be seen by the Journals. From the year 1717, when a fund was established by a warrant of George 1st, up to the present time, no change had been made in the oath prescribed, and the pension to officers' widows had always been considered as one of the advantages held out to the officers entering the service. On this subject he begged to refer hon. Members to the Report of a Committee in 1746, and to state that officers' widows received their pensions as a matter of course, until the issuing of the warrant in the first year of his present Majesty. The new warrant did not allow a pension to the widow of an officer who married within ten years of his entering the service, and excluded those who had married beyond a certain age: he approved of those regulations. It was also stated that the pension was not to be granted to widows in wealthy circumstances; but all these provisions were expressly directed to be applied to widows of officers marrying subsequently to 1830. He, therefore, complained that the warrant had not been justly construed. Widows were now called upon to take an oath, not prescribed in the warrant, or by Act of Parliament, as to their fortune, and to furnish certificates to the same effect. He knew two instances of widows who had been refused pensions—one because her husband, in a long life in the service, had saved about 11,000l.; the other, because she had a few hundreds a-year from West India property, although her husband's commission must have cost him 5,000l. He also knew that several officers thinking their wives were secure of their pensions, on the faith of Parliament, had ensured their lives to add to their wives provision, and they were now afraid that, after having denied themselves common comforts for that purpose, that the pension might be refused in consequence. For these reasons, he again entreated his right hon. friend, the Secretary at War, to give the subject his most serious consideration.

said, this was rather a delicate subject, and would require the attention of whoever might be Secretary at War. He believed, however, that the hon. and gallant Member had not stated this matter quite correctly. Before the year 1830 the word "proper" was inserted in the warrants granting these pensions, since that time, upon the recommendation of the Committee which sat upon superannuations, the word "proper" had been erased, and the words "wealthy circumstances" had been substituted in the warrants. The substitution of these words had given rise to a question, whether the Secretary at War had a right to inquire into the amount of any widow's income who desired to be put on the army pension list. His right hon. predecessor in the War-office (Sir H. Parnell) was of opinion that he had a right to institute such inquiry. Still, though such was the case, there were only four instances in which a refusal to grant the pension had been given. The first was in the case of a widow, who enjoyed a clear income of 1,856l. a-year; the next was in the case of a widow who had 630l. a-year; the third was in the case of a widow who had 400l. a-year; and the fourth was in the case of a widow who refused to give any account of her income. He thought that it would be very difficult to draw up a scale by which to determine, when a widow having children should, and when she should not, receive a pension. But such a scale might be drawn up with respect to childless widows. The warrant expressly said, no widows had any claim as a matter of right, and he was of opinion, therefore, that no general rule could be devised to meet such cases, and the decision of them must rest, in all future years with the Secretary at War for the time being. Without going into the question further, however, at present he would content himself with saying, that there were widows in the receipt of pensions who would do well to consider whether ought to continue to hold them.

said, that when he held the office of Secretary at War, he had consulted the best informed persons in his department, as to what had been the usual course of proceeding respecting the application of officers' widows for pensions, and that he had formed his decision upon the information which he had so received. In coming to the decision which he had formed upon this subject, he assured the House that he had been particularly desirous not to do any thing that was either unjust or severe to the widows of those gallant men who had shed their best blood in the service of the country.

said, it was impossible to establish any general rule to fix what were "wealthy circumstances." When he had held the office of Secretary at War, a case had come before him of the widow of a general officer who had an income of 1,400l. a-year, but then the lady had a large family, and her husband placing the greatest confidence in her discretion had left his whole property to her to divide among the children. He thought, therefore, that she was as fit an object of the King's bounty as another widow without such an income, but who had no such family claims. But, surely, it was no hardship that ladies under such circumstances should be called upon to make an authentic statement of their means and the claims upon them. The right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was a Member of the Finance Committee, must recollect that it was in that Committee that the revised warrant with respect to widows' pensions was suggested. The first article of that warrant declaring that widows had not a claim of right, was not intended to bar proper applications, but only to prevent improper ones. There could not, in his mind, be a more sacred claim than that the widow of a man who had lost his life in the service of his country, in battle, or in an unhealthy climate, should be provided for. When it was agreed in the Finance Committee, that wealthy widows should be excluded from the King's bounty, the next case was to consider how that resolution could be carried into effect, and it was agreed to leave the case to the discretion of the Secretary at War, who would be guided in each individual case by the circumstances connected with it, But an investigation into private affairs was at all times odious, and he understood the affidavit required, was very unpopular in the army, and, as he believed, there might be means of obtaining the desired information by other methods, such as through the commanding officer, who had the power of recommending widows for pensions; he should advise that the affidavit might be dispensed with, particularly as only four pensions had been refused in the course of a year. It would have been better to grant them than run the risk of refusing one that deserved it, and so going on an unsound principle.

said, that during the time that he was in office, he had acted on the principle laid down by his right hon. friend. He could not, however, admit that the distressed circumstances of an officer's widow formed the sole foundation for granting her a pension. It was the services performed by her husband in his life-time that gave her a claim after his death for some remuneration. He was perfectly aware that nothing was more unpopular in the Army than the requisition which compelled every widow to declare the amount of her income upon affidavit at the time she made application for a pension. The Secretary at War was generally at war with every one else in the Army in consequence of the numerous applications which he had to examine and to refuse. In answering applications of this kind, it was impossible to lay down any general rule, as each case differed from its fellow in several circumstances. Still the Secretary at War ought not to be too strict in deciding upon claims of this nature: on the contrary, he ought to hold the scales fairly, and to decide impartially between the public and the unfortunate applicants for these pensions.

begged to assure hon. Members, that for the last hundred years, the pensions had not been granted on account of the poverty of the widows; a warrant had been issued by Queen Anne, about the year 1708, in which the terms "indigent circumstances" were made use of; but these words were omitted on the warrant issued by George 1st in 1717.

said, he had no connexion whatever with military affairs, but he deprecated any attempt to institute an inquisitorial investigation into the state of the affairs of the widows of the brave men who had died in the public service. It would be a most cruel proceeding to make any deduction in the pittance allowed to their widows. In some instances, it might be matter of regret, that pensions were obtained undeservedly, but to interfere with the general principle of pensions to officers widows on that account, was most unjust. Vote agreed to. On the vote for 42.047l. for allowances on the compassionate list, royal bounty, and pensions, &c., to officers for wounds, being read by the Chairman,

said, that a letter had appeared in The Times paper of Friday last, signed St. G. Lyster, upon this subject; in which that person complained, that he had been deprived of his military pension, without any reference to the late king. He knew nothing of the case, but he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hobhouse), whether he would make an inquiry into it.

would say but a few words on this subject. This was a case of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite would find in the War-office a minute in his hand-writing. In that the whole case of Captain Lyster would be seen, and he, as responsible for the proceeding adopted towards that officer, should be at all times ready to answer any question that might be proposed with regard to it. Vote agreed to. On the grant for 378,579l. 1s. 1d. for the charge of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, and the in and out pensioners of the same,

said, that it was a shame to take a shilling in the pound from the pittance allowed to poor soldiers as a pension. How or for what purpose this deduction was made, he could not understand; but when he saw pensions to an immense amount granted to officers of state, and other high persons, he thought it was most disgraceful to take this paltry sum from the poor man who had probably been wounded in the public service. He therefore hoped an end would be put to the system.

said that this, though an apparent, was not a real, deduction from the pensions of these poor men—on the contrary, it afforded some, though a very inadequate, return for the service done to them. Formerly pensioners were allowed to borrow money, which they could only get on very disadvantageous terms; whereas now, they were paid the half-year in advance, and saved from the usurious interest they had heretofore paid. If it was taken into consideration how many of them died between the commencement of the half-year and the day when the pension became due, it would be found that the Government was a loser, and that there was no want of charity in the deduction.

said, the explanation of the right hon. Baronet amounted to this, these poor people were badly off before, and they were no better off now.

was convinced that the business of the hospitals could be done without such an establishment of clerks as were maintained at them, and their salaries might go, if the business was properly conducted, to augment the allowances of the poor pensioners.

assured his hon. friend, that there were no more clerks employed than was necessary, the immense number of these pensioners occasioned a very voluminous correspondence. Vote agreed to, as was 12,695l. 15s. 1d. for superannuations, and 3,650l. for Exchequer fees on the payments for the non-effective service.

then observed, that he had pleasure in mentioning to the House that he had heard from the medical gentlemen who had witnessed the course of the Cholera in the north of England, that not one soldier had been attacked by the disease. He would also state, that a place for which Government had been in treaty was taken for the Guards, in order to secure so valuable a branch of the public service from any danger of this disorder.

brought forward the Army Extraordinaries. He begged to say, that he proposed to take a general vote for three months, to the extent of 300,000l. The House would perceive that a great reduction had been made in those Estimates, and he hoped a similar service would be effected on the sum which might now be voted. He should be most happy to give every explanation on the subject of those Estimates, which might be required, and he would reserve himself for that purpose. The question was then put, that a sum not exceeding 300,000l. be granted for the purpose of defraying the extraordinary expenses of the Army.

said, that the form of these accounts rendered them totally unintelligible. They seemed to be a mere cover for expenses of every description, which could not be brought regularly before the House. He would not ask his right hon. friend for any explanation of them, because he knew it must be out of his power to give it. He believed, however, there was a reduction in the whole sum charged. Surely a better system of keeping the public accounts could be had, by which each separate department could give an exact account of their receipt and expenditure drawn up by the proper officers, who should be responsible for their correctness.

said, that he had always objected to the form of the accounts, as there were a great many of the most incongruous items introduced under this head: a Government ship for Newfoundland, Indian presents for Canada, and the payment of the clergy in the same colony, appeared strangely in an account like this, and so also did the expenses of the Swan River establishment. With respect to these they formed a large and increasing burthen. The Governor, Captain Stirling, had been empowered to draw bills on the Treasury at home for any stores that might be required. He had done so, but the Government had now sent out a commissary to superintend the providing of stores, and act as a check with respect to these bills. At the same time he must state, that there were many charges to be provided for during the year, which could not be foreseen at the commencement, although their effects might be ultimately attended with a saving of the public money. For instance, in these accounts, there was a charge of 61,715l. for the purchase of half-pay commissions, by which an annual saving in the dead weight had accrued of 10,236l., but no doubt many items appeared in their accounts which ought not to be found there, and that they afforded a facility for certain expenses, could not be denied. The great charges incurred on account of the Canadian canals, were of that character. As a general change was contemplated in the form of these accounts, it would not be right to impede this vote by an alteration,

said, that the late Administration ought to be made responsible for all expenses connected with the Swan River settlement. Had the proper principle of colonization been attended to, as they had been with regard to the American colonies, this country would not have been put to any expense on that account.

feared the late Government had managed the settlement with more regard to private interests, than for the public benefit: more expenses had been incurred on that account than were proper, and most assuredly such charges ought not to be found in the Army Extra-ordinaries even if they were right.

asked why this country should be called on to pay money for a colony which seemed to have been established only because a private individual wished to settle in a part of Australia.

asked how long it was likely that these payments would continue?

could not give a definite answer. The Governor, as he had before stated, was allowed to draw bills on the Government at home, and upon that principle he had hitherto acted. This would not, however, continue, as a commissary for this especial purpose had been sent out. There was, however, a prospect that these extraordinary supplies would not be longer wanted. He certainly was of opinion, that it was a very unadvisable proceeding to give the Governor of a colony the power of drawing bills to any extent, without the smallest check whatever. He expected a report from Captain Stirling upon the subject very soon, but at all events, it would not be prudent to act hastily on this point, as great interests might be injured by so doing.

was aware that official persons too often considered, when appointed to colonial situations, that the public purse was at their mercy. He was surprised at the large demand that was made for the support of this colony, after the pledge that had been given by the late Government, upon its being founded, that no expense would be thereby incurred.

did not know when the hon. Member had obtained the pledge alluded to. The hon. Member certainly had not received any pledge from him that the founding this, a new colony, should not be attended with any expense to Government.

objection applied to the circumstance of granting to a mere Captain of a ship of war the power of dispensing and controlling alone so large a sum as 24,000l. on account of a paltry colony. With respect to pledges, he remembered that when the largeness of the grant of 270,000 acres to one individual was adverted to in the House, it was replied, that the grant was made on condition that the country should sustain no expense. He thought, in such cases, it would be highly desirable that papers should be laid before the House explanatory of the mode of this application of money in the distant colonies.

said, the hon. Member was welcome to have all the papers in the public offices on the subject. The object proposed in appointing a Commissary to the station was to control and limit the expense, and he had been taken from the half-pay list.

was Secretary for the Colonial Department at the period of the outfit of the colonists to the Swan River, and agreed that a pledge given under such circumstances by a Minister would be binding; but the pledge alluded to was altogether imaginary. The reason for founding this colony was purely political, lest another Power, as was expected, should send a colony thither, which would, no doubt, have proved, in time, a possible source of hostility between the two mother countries. The salaries were arranged at the smallest possible rate; but it was absurd to imagine this sort of colony could be founded without Government incurring a portion of the expenses incident to its infant state. He had never given any such pledge as that alluded to.

begged again to remind the right hon. Baronet, that it was on the occasion when the enormous grants of land which had been given to favoured individuals was adverted to in that House, particularly the grant, in one instance, amounting to 270,000 acres, that the pledge, that no expense would be incurred had been given.

said, it was necessary, to induce some capitalists, who could maintain the expense of bringing out colonists, and locating them there, that a large grant of land should be given, as an inducement to such capitalists to embark in so hazardous a speculation. This the Colonial Office then did to avoid the expense of transport of the individuals going out thither, which was, as he had promised, borne by the persons to whom this grant of land was made.

said, that this colony had been founded on a wrong principle. He acquitted the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Murray) of any intention to do what was not right; but the course pursued, of giving large grants of land to individuals, was pregnant with mischief. He thought it also a very doubtful policy to people the large continent of Australia with convicts. He had understood that it had not been intended to make the Swan River a convict colony, and he regretted to hear that it had become so.

said, that there never had been an intention to make it a convict colony, and if it had become so, it was since he was out of office. The principle laid down at the formation of the settlement was, that it never should become a convict colony. With respect to large grants of land to individuals, in old colonies, it was no doubt impolitic, but in new colonies it was only by making large grants that individuals could be induced to carry out emigrants.

was not aware of the grounds upon which the hon. Member had stated that the Swan River had become a convict colony.

said, he had understood that application had been made to that effect by the settlers, and that the application had been granted. He spoke only from an impression on his own mind.

begged to refer hon. Members to the former policy of this country to prove that, in the establishment of a colony small grants of land were preferable to large grants, and that the latter were productive of great inconvenience.

called the attention of the Committee to the large sum voted for Ceylon. There was a sum of 95,000l. more than the receipts for the year 1831 to be defrayed by this country. This fine colony was capable of supporting itself; but it was the most extravagant colony belonging to the Crown. There should be regular colonial vouchers for the expenditure, and a debtor and creditor account.

said, that the apparent large expenditure was occasioned by the redemption of debentures of a debt contracted in the Canadian war. The civil establishment was defrayed by the island, and better arrangements were now made for rendering the revenues more productive.

protested, in the name of the people of England, against this country being burthened with the civil expenditure of any colony.

said, that the hon. Member's protest was unnecessary, as far as regarded Ceylon, for this country was not called upon to pay any part of the civil establishment of that colony.

knew, from experience, that however sound the objections to votes of this description were, they were generally carried, although they might, as in the case of the 1,000l. relating to the supply of water to the Metropolis in the civil contingences, be postponed for a time,

said, that no single colony paid its expenses. He begged to ask, if there was any prospect of the House having the accounts of the colonies from year to year, as had been promised?

said, there were considerable difficulties in preparing an account which was perfectly new, and of which great part was to be procured from the colonies. It was his intention soon to present one as complete as possible for this year, and a more complete one next year.

was sorry to hear the hon. member for Middlesex say, that no single colony paid its expenses. All the colonies paid their civil and ecclesiastical expenses, and some of them a great part of their military expenses. The island of Jamaica paid the whole expenses of its civil establishment, the whole expense of its ecclesiastical establishment with the exception of the Bishop, and 140,000l. of its military expense.

maintained, that there was not a single colony in the possession of this country which was not a heavy burthen to it. The Army, the Navy, the Ordnance, &c. were parts of the expenditure. In the paper in his hand he found large items for the service of Jamaica.

, in explanation, observed, that he had never said, that the whole of the expense of the military establishments was defrayed by the colonies.

observed, that the country was at the expense of maintaining 35,000 men in the colonies. He did not ask for an account of the expense of those colonies which did not ask the mother country for money; only for those which did.

thought, that no man could be so silly as to suppose, that the expense in question was solely for the benefit of the colonies—it was for the general advantage of the empire.

said, the next Resolution he had to propose related to the Commissariat Department. There had been a reduction of 21,359l. upon the Estimate of the last year, chiefly caused by the diminution of Commissaries in the West-India islands, and at New South Wales; he begged leave, therefore, to move, that 398,781l. be granted to defray the charges of the Commissariat Department up to March 31, 1832.

thought this vote ought to be postponed until they had voted the military estimate for the year. They had only done so already up to the end of March, and it was not known what number of troops would be required from that time until March, 1833.

said, there was no difficulty in dividing the vote, and taking it for the quarter only. It was, however, giving the House the trouble of taking two votes, instead of one.

begged to inquire if the saving arose from the diminution of the number of Commissaries employed alone.

Not altogether. There was some saving on account of half-pay, and a large saving on account of forage.

wished to have some estimate of the expense likely to be incurred for completing the Rideau Canal, before this vote was granted. The Resolution withdrawn. 13,204l. to defray the charges for the half-pay, superannuations, and retired allowances of the Officers of the Commissariat, up to March 31, 1832; and 83,235l. to defray certain other charges upon the Commissariat Department, 1832, were voted.

moved "that 195,000l. be granted to provide for the payment of certain salaries, allowances, pensions, &c., heretofore paid out of the Civil List of Great Britain and Ireland, the hereditary revenues of Scotland, and the four-and-a-half per cent, duty on sugars, but for which no provision had been made in the Civil List granted to his present Majesty." He staled, that he had hoped it would have been in his power before this to have brought in a specific Bill for the regulating the payment of the charges included in this vote, but considerable delay had been created by inquiries made at the recommendation of a Committee which had sat upon the subject relating to certain payments. This circumstance, added to the pressure of other business, hitherto, had prevented him from doing so, and, therefore, he was under the necessity of asking for this grant on account. He hoped, before the expiration of the quarter, to be able to bring in a Bill upon the subject.

begged to be informed, whether this vote contained the exact amount of the estimates, without any deductions that might have been recommended by the Committee.

said, the sum required was according to the Resolutions of the Committee, subject to inquiries relating to certain payments.

understood, from that reply, that no deductions had actually been made.

said, there had actually been a reduction of 4,799l. in the whole expense, which had been saved under the head of pensions; 3,755l. of which had expired; and 1,044l. had been surrendered by the parties entitled thereto.

said, he was happy that this vote was proposed, for the Crown was entitled to receive it on account of having surrendered the hereditary revenues at the accession, and this was a tardy acknowledgment of the gracious act, although the House, when it was announced, pledged itself to make a permanent provision to supply the deficiency, yet nearly two Sessions had passed, and the pledge had not been redeemed. He gave full weight to the cause which the noble Lord had assigned for this delay—namely, pressure of business, but he gave no weight to the minor grounds of inquiry making at the Treasury relating to some of the payments. Resolution agreed to, and the House resumed.

hoped the Committee would allow him to make a few observations before submitting the Resolution which it was his intention to propose. There were two classes of spirits—the one distilled entirely from malt, the other partly from raw grain. The spirits entirely-distilled from fine malt paid a double duty—that which is charged on the malt, and likewise that charged upon the spirit; while the spirits distilled from the mixture of raw grain, of course, paid only the duty on the spirit. In Scotland, the spirit was entirely distilled from malt; and the smuggler was able to beat the legal distiller out of the market, inasmuch as he paid duty neither on malt nor spirit. The Government, in 1821, allowed a drawback of 1s. a bushel upon malt used in distillation. The drawback was increased in 1823 to 1s. the gallon of spirit, which was equal to 2s. upon a bushel of malt; and, subsequently, when the duty was fixed at 2s. 1d. a bushel, 2s. 4d. was paid, by way of drawback, to the distiller of pure malt. The distiller of raw grain received no drawback for the malt he consumed. This circumstance, combined with the great reduction of duty, had improved the revenue, and put an end to illicit distillation. The malt drawback had effected a decided good, while the reduction of the duty on spirits had been of great service in putting an end to smuggling, enabling the fair and legal distiller to meet any competition in the market. In Ireland and in England the reduction of the duty on spirits had produced the same beneficial effect as in Scotland. The amount of drawback, however, soon came to bear an enormous proportion to the sum received for the malt duty itself. In a few years the malt drawback more than doubled itself, and, at the present moment, the allowance amounted to between 300,000l. and 500,000l. At the same time it was generally supposed that this drawback was no longer a protection to the fair and legal distiller, but was become a source of great profit to the fraudulent trader. A Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject, and they had come to those Resolutions upon which he had the honour to address the House. The Committee was of opinion, that the present system of allowing a drawback on malt spirit afforded opportunities of fraud, and that no due precaution had been taken to prevent it, which the Committee conceive could only be effected by a reduction of the drawback. He would not go into the evidence adduced before the Committee, and on which these opinions were founded. Excise officers were, in one instance, sent down to examine a distillery, when it appeared that every opportunity existed for committing fraud. He was far from saying that every person in the trade was fraudulent; but in every trade there were persons less honest than others. The case does not, however, rest entirely upon this proof. The Committee inquired of some Scotch distillers upon what calculation it was, that they were able to undersell the Irish distillers. He was bound to say that the explanation was not satisfactory. There were also distillers before the Committee who had actually received a large amount of drawback, and who admitted that, though they did not commit it, that some fraud was practised. If the Committee were able to find out the existence of fraud, it would be by referring to the table which showed the quantity of malt used in the distilleries of raw grain, and the quantity of spirit produced from a certain quantity of malt. The fraudulent practice consisted in removing malt from a distillery of one description to that of the other. The proportion of malt to the quantity of spirit produced in England and Ireland is much the same, but in Scotland the proportion of spirit to malt is much more considerable. He was, however, anxious to bring forward the case, not upon any special grounds, or in reference to a particular branch of trade, but upon more general calculations: and what he had stated would entitle him to call upon the House to act upon the recommendation of the Committee, and reduce the drawback. But the case stood upon very strong grounds, even if they entirely put aside the question of fraud. The drawback was granted at first, not as a permanent, but as a temporary protection. It was meant to obtain for the legal distiller a fair position in the market. That object had been accomplished; and although he was far from wishing to take away that protection so rapidly and incautiously as to re-produce the evil which it was intended to destroy, and to cause again all the evils of smuggling, yet he was fully prepared to say, that Government ought carefully and cautiously to put an end to a system, the necessity for which no longer existed. Formerly Scotland and Ireland were combined together to defraud the revenue, and injure the fair trader, but that combination was broken up, and the habits of the people were changed. The trade no longer required the amount of protection which was formerly requisite. What, then, was the degree of protection now required? It would be remembered that the present amount of the malt drawback was 1s. 2d. upon the imperial gallon. The Resolution he was about to submit, proposed that this amount should be reduced to 8d. He would state one circumstance to show that the Committee did not recommend a reduction which would excite smuggling. One of the distillers, who received the malt drawback, was asked the question whether, if he were allowed a drawback of 9d., he could carry on his trade with a profit?—and he answered, yes. It was, therefore, upon the assurance that 8d. would be an adequate protection to the trade, that he begged to move, that the allowance of drawback now paying upon every 100 gallons of spirit, distilled in Scotland and Ireland, from malt only, shall cease and determine, and, in lieu of such allowance there shall be allowed upon all spirit in Scotland and Ireland, a drawback on every bushel of barley-malt the sum of 8d.

was unwilling to trespass upon the House, but he could not allow this stage of the measure to pass without expressing his apprehensions of the serious consequences that must result from the alterations now proposed to be made. It ought to be recollected that the present regulations were adopted after great deliberation; and they had proved efficient for the purposes they were intended to accomplish. They had effected the complete extinction of illicit distillation, and had increased, in an equal degree, the trade of the legal distiller. He, therefore, begged to assure the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if this alteration were carried into effect, he must be prepared for a very considerable increase of illicit distillation, and a great deficiency in the revenue. He was the more satisfied of this, because, since the last Session of Parliament, illicit distillation had actually commenced in many parts of the country. He was not prepared to go further into the question, but he should certainly give his most strenuous opposition to the proposed measure.

said, it was with very great regret that he had heard the hon. Gentleman, the member for Portsmouth, make his proposition for reducing the drawback allowance on malt. Any change of that kind was a bonus for the production of a spirit of inferior quality; it would be an excitement to smuggling; and would sacrifice the interests of the small distiller, to those of the great monopolist. The measure had been brought forward partly in ignorance, and partly from interested motives. It had been brought forward by those who were anxious to prevent illicit distillation of every description; but it was urged on by the Irish distillers, who were anxious to put down the competition of Scotch distillers, that they might be able to bring into the market their own articles at higher prices. It had not been denied that illicit distillation had materially decreased in Scotland since these regulations were introduced. Previous to the year 1821, the amount of duty collected was 5,000l., and in the last year, it amounted to 100,000l.; and in one small island there were, in 1821, no less than 300 convictions against illicit distilleries, and last year there were only three. He was also borne out in stating, that great advantage had resulted to the agricultural interests of Scotland by this change. Formerly the whole population of that island were in league with the illegal distiller. They were forced to be so; and the farmer obtained a very precarious return for his grain, and was subject to much loss. They now had a steady and permanent demand for their produce. Another reason for this very excellent regulation was, that it gave employment to a great many persons; and the people of the sister kingdom who complained of a superabundant population, might be glad to have the opportunity of finding such a source of employment for this population. The hon. Gentleman, the member for Portsmouth, had stated, that his Resolution was founded on the Resolutions of the Committee on this subject. He had been a Member of the Committee; and would venture to say, that the Resolution of the Committee was not conformable to the evidence adduced before it. He hoped Government would pause before it proposed any alteration in a law which had been found beneficial to the revenue of the country, and afforded employment to a great part of the population. It benefitted agriculture, and materially improved the morals of the people. It was said by the hon. Gentleman, that while the malt drawback had most materially increased, the duty on malt in Scotland had not in- creased. He was astonished to hear that statement, because, upon the reduction of the malt duty taking place, we were led to expect a great reduction in the revenue arising from that tax. It was insinuated that smugglers were concerned in the frauds imputed to the distillers. The fact, however, was, that the smugglers purchased their malt from those who had paid the duty; so that while the illicit distiller was paying the malt duty, the legal distiller was free from it. It was attempted to be shown to the Committee, that frauds had taken place, and it was said, that the mode in which they were carried on was, by removing the malt, upon which the drawback had been paid, to the raw grain distillery; but there was no evidence to justify them in believing that any such fraud had existed, except in one single instance; and he should like to know what plan the ingenuity of man could devise which could not be abused? But the practice of smuggling from the still mouth was much more extensive, being more easy of execution. The object of the parties interested in illicit distillation was to prevent the legal distiller from competing with them in the market, and, therefore, they wished to reduce the drawback; for, as the drawback was reduced, so would the relative profit of the distillers be diminished; actuated by this motive, their object was to get rid of the drawback. The removal of malt to the raw grain distilleries, could not take place unless the premises belonged to the same individual. It so happened that there were only three distillers in Scotland so circumstanced; and since the Committee sat, one of them had ceased. He was able to solve the question why the Irish distillers were undersold in their own market. The answer was, that the Scotch distillers had been selling under prime cost. It was so stated by a large distiller before the Committee; and his conscientious belief was, that this new regulation, by diminishing the malt drawback, would throw the malt distiller entirely out of the market; it would render his buildings and machinery useless, and throw the whole trade into the hands of the large monopolists. One of the arguments of the hon. member for Portsmouth was, that illicit distillation was checked, not so much by the malt drawback, as by the reduction of the duty on spirit. He was not prepared to say, that the malt drawback alone decreased the illicit distilleries, but it must be observed, that, previous to that time the amount of malt drawback had been very small. It had been 1s. upon a bushel of malt. Subsequently to 1824, the duty was reduced 1s. a gallon on spirits, and at a subsequent period 2d. more. He, therefore, thought he was entitled to conclude that the reduction of illicit distillation was as much owing to this excellent regulation, as to the reduction of duty on spirits. The distillers of Scotland were as anxious as the hon. Member, or the distillers of Ireland, that an end should be put to all illicit distillation, and were ready to concur with the Government in putting a stop to every species of fraud; and they suggested that, by the introduction of an additional regulation, every species of fraud would be prevented. The regulation was, that the stock should be kept of the malt in the raw grain distilleries as well as in the malt distilleries; and another regulation which they proposed, and to which he begged the attention of Government was, that there should be a better look-out by the Excise: because there existed at present a much greater opportunity for fraud being committed by getting spirits at the still's mouth, than by any other practice that could be adopted. He would not trouble the Committee further; but it would be his duty hereafter to oppose any regulation that might be introduced, founded upon the Resolution now proposed. The noble Lord, he was sure, would be disappointed in the result of this change, and would find, that, he had been led away by the clamour of interested parties. In the name, and on behalf of the people, both of Scotland and England, he protested against forcing upon them an unwholesome and unpalatable liquor. Deeming the measure equally injurious to the revenue of the country, and to the morals of the people, he should give it every possible opposition.

thought that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not done much credit to the Irish Members for the part they had taken in this matter. He stood before the Committee, both for the distiller and the agricultural interest; and he believed that the Scotch Members would stand up for their country. He was glad that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had expressed his readiness to bring forward the proposition, which rested upon the broadest basis. It was submitted to him last Session that a manifest injury was inflicted on Ireland through the means of an equally serious injury done to the revenue of the country. This was the unanimous opinion of all the Irish Members assembled in this city, and they expressed that opinion to the noble Lord. A Committee was granted; and the hon. member for Portsmouth had stated the evidence submitted to that Committee. The injury sustained by Ireland, in consequence of illicit distillation, was very considerable, not only to the revenue, but to the morals of the people. There were a great number of facts on which he rested his assertion. The Government, a very short time since, reduced the duty 1s. 3d., and the effects were soon seen. He had lived for many years in a part of the country where illicit distillation prevailed to a considerable extent; but, by reducing the duty, illicit distillation was almost done up. It would appear clear, to every person conversant with the subject, that the duty was even now too heavy for the licensed distiller to compete with the illicit distiller. He hoped he need not expatiate very largely on the subject; but it was one in which the character and morals of the people were involved, and everything should be done that was possible to encourage legal distillation in Ireland, as a means of improving the morals of the people. He did not consider this either as an Irish or Scotch question, although he would not give way to any man in his feelings for Ireland; but he had considered it so far as it was likely to affect both countries; and he could not but feel that the local interest of Ireland would be more materially injured, and he could not but observe how hard it was that, for the sake of preventing a partial injury to the highlands of Scotland, the lowlands of that country, as well as the greater part of Ireland, should be called upon to suffer. The whole system of drawbacks was bad; and an alteration ought to take place in the whole system of the Excise. This system had been so frequently altered partially, that now it ought to be revised altogether. It was carried on at enormous expense, and in spite of this, great frauds had been committed, and no steps had been taken to remedy these evils. It had been attended with great injustice to one part of the country, and tended to affect the morals of all. He would give his support to any measure brought forward for the protection of the highlands of Scotland; but he never would consent that a large district in Ireland should be injured, in order that a small portion of Scotland might be thereby benefitted.

said, this question was about to be carried by the numerical strength of the Irish Members, who had forced his Majesty's Ministers under the fear of losing their votes, to bring it forward without allowing any time for deliberation. What else could induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring it forward? If he submitted to this, he would lay the foundation of all those evils against morality which had been dwelt upon. At this moment there were large districts in Scotland where smuggling was carried on to a very great extent, and none of the Members from Scotland, he was sure, would wish for the sake of any measure to give an encouragement to fraud. He hoped that the English Members, on this occasion, would assist the Scotch in opposing a knot of Irish Members.

, having given his best attention to this measure, was willing to support the Resolution of the hon. member for Portsmouth. He thought it would be better to take away the whole of the drawback, and to make the measure as general as possible. His hon. friends, the members for Scotland, had not considered the subject with regard to its proper bearings. In 1819, a very great increase was made in the duty on malt generally, and from that period to the time when a distinction was made, an increase in illicit distillation took place. In the course of the next year, there were complaints made that it was impossible that the malt in Scotland could bear this duty; and it was urged, that a distinction ought to be made, and it was stated incidentally that if this plan were adopted it would tend to do away with illicit distillation in that country, and it was carried in a Committee in 1821. In the three following years there was no diminution in illicit distillation, but in 1824 a complete change took place in the whole distillery laws, and it appeared that, in the very next year, there was an increase of more than double the former number of small stills, and illicit distillation considerably decreased. It appeared, from the evidence before the Committee, that very great, frauds had been committed on the revenue; and these frauds were said to have arisen from its having been repre- sented by the distillers that it would be improper to remove from their premises so great a quantity of malt; and, therefore, when the hon. Member alluded to these frauds, it must be observed, that they were not committed by the small distiller, but by the large. Although illicit distillation prevailed more in 1819, 1820, and 1821, than it had done since the drawback existed, yet, in his opinion, the reduction of the drawback would not have a similar effect.

thought it likely, from the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman to the measure as it stood, that his mind had been biassed by information obtained from his own neighbourhood. It had been inferred, that this capability of fraud had arisen from the adoption of a particular measure; but in what single instance, where any measure had benefitted the revenue, had fraud not followed in practice? though it did not appear that frauds had been carried on to any great amount. Officers were sent down to examine into the case, and they reported that they could not discover, that frauds had taken place; and if any had been carried on to the extent represented, there could be no doubt that they must have been discovered. He would vote for any regulation which would prevent fraud. As to what had fallen from the hon. member for Donegal, it was his (Mr. W. Campbell's) most earnest wish, that Ireland should thrive, but not at the expense of Scotland. These new distilleries were not created until 1824—the year when the whole of these drawbacks were brought before the notice of the House; and if the drawback were reduced, the consequence would be, illicit distillation; and he verily believed that it had already had that effect. Before the Resolution was passed, if pass it must, it ought first to be ascertained whether the accusation of fraud was just.

said, there had been in the highland districts of Scotland, a complete range of illicit distilleries; but, since the reduction of the duty, illicit distillation had been entirely suppressed. The present measure was likely to have an injurious effect on the morals of the people of Scotland, as well as, in a great degree, to diminish the revenue of the country. It would not only affect the highland districts, but also the farmers of the neighbouring country. Such a measure as this ought not to pass without ample information being laid before the House. If the distillers in the highlands were accused of having been guilty of frauds, the facts should be proved, and then it ought to be ascertained whether this measure would prevent it in future, which he, for one, very much doubted.

assured the hon. member for Glasgow that it was on his own conviction of its propriety, that he had proposed this measure. That conviction was founded on information obtained, not from Irish Members alone, but also from those of Scotland, who had attended the Committee; and it was from the recommendation of that Committee, and the evidence taken before it, that he considered this reduction of the drawback could be safely made. Hon. Members had rather exaggerated the importance of the question; but he looked upon it as a measure which might benefit the revenue. Illicit distillation existed in Scotland to a great extent in 1821, in consequence of which drawbacks were introduced. In 1824 a great reduction took place in the duty, not only in Scotland, but in Ireland, after which illicit distillation ceased, not only in Scotland but in Ireland; and, therefore, the cessation of illicit distillation could not be attributed solely to this drawback; the diminution of duty was the principal cause, and the diminution of the drawback could not have the effect of causing a return to illicit distillation. It was said that proofs ought to be brought as to actual fraud having been committed. But there was always very great difficulty in procuring proofs of this nature; for, if it escaped the observation of officers immediately on the spot, it was still more difficult to be ascertained by strangers. A great deal of smuggling had been proved, before this Committee, to have existed, and there was great facility for smuggling existing at present. It was possible that illicit distillation which had been destroyed in the highlands of Scotland, would recommence on the adoption of this measure. Smuggling was now carried on, and, as a preventive to that practice, this measure was proposed. The expectation of the drawback being taken away, or rather diminished, could not be the cause why illicit distillation should be on the increase. If such increase had taken place, it was not from this cause, but from the rise which had taken place in the price of spirits. From the circumstances he had now stated, he considered that there was no reason to believe, that this partial reduction in the drawback would have the effect imagined. The people of the highlands had been brought to feel the benefits of legal practices; and, in his opinion, there were grounds for the Motion in the information which had been laid before the House.

would not detain the House by a repetition of any of the points so properly urged by the hon. member for Portsmouth, and the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the propriety of the measure before the House; but he would make some few observations in consequence of what had been stated by hon. Members opposed to this Resolution. In the first place, he would call the attention of the House to this point: the Resolution altered the existing law by only reducing the amount of drawback from 1s. 2d. to 8d. per gallon. The advocates for continuing the former alleged, that it was necessary, in order to induce a manufacture of spirit from malt suitable to the taste of Scotland. It appeared in evidence before the Committee, that such was the preference for what was called "wee still whiskey" in Scotland, that it commonly obtained 3s. per gallon more in price than other spirits. It must, therefore, be evident, that where so decided a preference existed, a deduction of 8d. from this preference of 3s. the gallon could not materially affect the trade of the wee distiller; but this preference arose not from the manufacture being from malt, because nearly all the witnesses examined before the Committee agreed, that what was called malt was only a very inferior malt, in fact, a grain only partially malted; and, therefore, differing little, if in any degree, from a mixture of raw grain and malt, which was invariably used in the raw grain or large stills; therefore, the superiority must arise from other causes, not necessary now to argue. The hon. Baronet, the member for Edinburgh, had so clearly stated the cause of allowing this drawback, shewing, also, that it could have been intended only as a temporary, and not a permanent measure, that he (Mr. Callaghan) did not think any of the Members of the Government then existing would advocate the measure being continued; indeed, when the Finance Committee, of which the right hon. Baronet, the member for Queen's County, was Chairman, resolved on the abolition of all bounties, and reported especially that this malt drawback should be discontinued, the trade expected an immediate abolition; and it was only last year, when the importations of spirits into Ireland from Scotland appeared to so great an extent, that the Irish distillers in vain looked for any cause of that except the effect of this bounty; Scotland being able to receive barley and oats from Ireland, and after distilling them, to send them back to Ireland at heavy charges in the shape of spirits. They then found, on the official returns, that, in some cases, more drawback on malt was paid in Scotland than the whole duty received there. The hon. member for Argyle said, the Irish distillers then charged the Scotch with fraud, and that the evidence showed that no such fraud existed; that all the Excise officers examined proved this. The Irish distillers did no such thing as charge the Scotch distillers generally with fraud; they only undertook to show that the system was in its nature susceptible of fraud at the expense of the revenue; and, in revenue matters, where fraud could be practised, it would be practised by some persons. The evidence of Excise officers, that they did not know of frauds committed, was no proof that fraud did not exist; for how could Excise officers be cognizant of fraud, and not have made seizures and detections? The Irish distillers knew well the practicability of committing fraud, and they never undertook to prove more than a primâ facie case, that frauds were committed. They were not manufacturers or residents in Scotland, but they were supported by the opinion of many of the most respectable of the trade in Scotland in their view of it. There could be no doubt that some persons had an undue advantage from it. He agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Ross-shire, that this should be looked upon, not as a Scotch or an Irish question, but as a national question, affecting the trade of the three countries; and it was certain, that any undue advantage enjoyed by some traders, however partial, operated injuriously, in many cases, to all. This undue drawback, by reducing the cost of production to some, lowered the price, and the rate of profit generally, to the manufacturers of Scotland, and this extended itself to the trade in both England and Ireland. The Committee were almost unanimous in the resolution that this drawback should be abolished. And the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having acceded to it, he was bound to support it. He (Mr. Callaghan) found fault with his decision in not having gone far enough. He ought at once to abolish the whole 1s. 2d.; but if, in the exercise of his discretion, he thought that a part should be kept up in order to prevent illicit distillation reviving, he might, perhaps, be justified. Attention to the subject would show, however, that the drawback and illicit distillation had no connection. The abolition of the drawback would increase the duty and the price of spirits in Scotland; but it was the price and the high duty that alone would encourage illicit distillation. The Scotch Members asserted, that already, even the expectation of this drawback being repealed, had given rise to some smuggling. In Ireland, where the drawback had never been taken advantage of to any but the most trifling extent, illicit distillation had also begun this year. The low price of grain, and the cheapness of fuel or peat, to be had this year in abundance, and which could not have been had for the few last years in Ireland, were the causes of it; and, if the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wanted to prevent smuggling, he must take away some of the duty now existing. In fact, the Committee had nearly decided on recommending a reduction of duty simultaneously with a cessation of drawback or bounty; but they left this, more properly, perhaps, to his decision. He mentioned this, to guard the Chancellor of the Exchequer against what he (Mr. Callaghan) was apprehensive of—that, next year the Scotch Members would want a renewal of this bounty, or that the remainder should be continued. And they would beard him on the subject. The revival of illicit distillation would, doubtless, be found also in Ireland; and he should protest against the cause—namely, too high a duty on spirits—being confounded with the repeal of this malt drawback. He was certain that many of the Scotch Gentlemen who were then present, agreed with him that the whole drawback should be done away; but, as they had told him in private conversation, they were obliged to yield their opinion to that of interested traders—their constituents. The advocates for a continuance of any bounty, were advocating a principle generally abandoned in that House, and they were bound to make out a strong case for the continuance of any; and this had certainly not been done in this debate.

considered the debate of that evening a good proof on which to form an opinion as to the religious feeling which pervaded the House; for one night was occupied in talking of religion, and the next night in debating as eagerly about gin. This might lead any one to suppose that the humane motive would be to prevent Cholera; but from what took place last night, it might be imagined that the same motive would induce the proposing a measure to prevent the drinking of gin. Here was Scotland trying to get the advantage of Ireland, and Ireland seeking to get the advantage of the poor West-Indian. If there were any parties who had a right to complain of this drawback, he should say the West-Indians had; for the cause of the West-Indian had been considered for a whole fortnight—and the question at last turned on the protection which was given to Scotland over Ireland, and the poor West-Indians were to look on, and hear the dispute about the former having a protecting duty of 1s. 6d. per gallon over the latter. The House ought to direct its attention on these points to another object.

never heard such reasoning as this. The hon. Gentleman had stuck so close to the point, that no one would have thought what was the subject of the discussion: he thought that the main point rested as to whether Ireland or Scotland should have the advantage. It had been said, that Scottish Members were subject to be pressed by the tradesmen and others, of the towns they represented, to give a vote on this measure, whether they approved of it or not. However, he could not be subject to this remark, as there was not a distiller in the town which he represented, and, therefore, his constituency did not feel any great interest in it; but he thought this Motion ought not to pass. He hoped that what had passed that night might not turn out so as to create a feud between his excellent Scotch and Irish friends. He would endeavour to say something in favour of Scotland, but the noble Lord would not yield to any of them. It had been stated, that there were no instances where fraud had been proved, and that there was no foundation for the measure, except a re- port that frauds had been carried on in Scotch distilleries. It would be unfair to Scotland, if this drawback should be taken away on mere report, when there was no proof of any fraud having been committed.

did not mean at that late hour to enter into any discussion of the general merits of the question before the Committee, but would merely thank the noble Lord for having gone so far as he had in giving redress to the Irish distiller, and express his hope that he would speedily carry the same principle to the entire extinction of the system of malt-drawback. He was gratified that a question had arisen upon which all Irish Members could be united; and this was the very first instance of their joining in approbation of any measure of his Majesty's present, Ministers. This ought not, however, to be considered as an anti-Scotch question, for he, for one, was almost as much attached to Scotland as to his own country; but hon. Members from Scotland must allow there was this great difference between them,—all that Irish Members asked was, that the trade should be left free; whereas, the Scotch advocated the continuance of restrictions and regulations, which they must at least admit were cumbrous and difficult. From the sentiment of the hon. Member below him, that there was upon this occasion any bargain or compromise with the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he must altogether dissent; for he meant the noble Lord to be provided with full notice, that though he supported his views on this occasion, he was not aware of any other upon which he was likely to support him. The Resolution agreed to.

brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the tithe of Ireland, and moved "That it do lie on the table."

inquired whether it was not to be read?

answered, that he meant merely to move, that the Report should lie on the Table and be printed. On the recommendation of the Committee ulterior proceedings would be founded, which of course would be fully discussed.

said, that so far as he knew of the report it was unjust, unsatisfactory, and premature. In his opinion church property should be appropriated to its original purposes, the chief of which was, the relief of the poor. By taking that course, three emergencies would be avoided—namely, the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, which was a matter of very questionable policy; next, the enforcement of the Vestry Bill; and lastly, the infliction of church-rates.